Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007

Following what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has just said, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may remember that I mentioned the persecution of gays the last time we debated a list of designated states. I pointed out then that the powers in Section 94(4) of the parent Act visualise the Secretary of State designating particular countries with respect to characteristics of asylum seekers from those places that are wider than gender. Did the noble Lord take advice on the question of gays from the African countries in the list, and has he considered whether they should be designated only for people who are heterosexual? I believe that it is time for us to confront these practices and to make sure that people not just from Cameroon are protected, where I agree there is a particular problem. I know this myself and I endorse entirely what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Violent prejudice against homosexuals is endemic in many African countries. Given that the powers exist in Section 94, they should be used to exclude homosexuals from the non-suspensive appeals process which is applied to the rest of the population in those countries. I hope that the noble Lord has had an adequate opportunity to consider this since I did raise it on the last occasion when we considered an order of this sort. It is a general application not just to the countries on this list, but to many which are already included from past designations. I am thinking particularly of Nigeria, Ghana and Jamaica, which were the three countries I referred to on the previous occasion. In fact, the Minister is quite right that the country of origin material has improved enormously. I have paid tribute to this in the past, and to the work of the independent advisory panel. Generally speaking, one finds that the country reports contain comprehensive lists of the material referred to by my noble friend. All the Amnesty reports and Human Rights Watch material will be included in the country of origin material. Listening to what the Minister told noble Lords, one can only say that it is a wonder that the decision was made to designate those countries in view not just of the wealth of material that comes from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, but also the fact that it is explicitly recognised in the Home Office’s own country of origin information material and in the work of the advisory panel which validates the reports. I wonder at the sort of process which allows one to get from consideration of a particular country by the Home Office to produce the country of origin report and the decision to designate. That is what is lacking in our discussion. We know what criticisms have been made and that the information exists in the Home Office’s internal reports, but we cannot connect the knowledge of that material with the decision to designate. That is something which the Minister has still to explain.